While searching the term “locative art” on Wikipedia, I found that it was vaguer. It was like giving me straight forward answers. I noticed why professors don’t usually like Wikipedia. I guess it was true about people changing things on Wikipedia, to give false information. I used Wikipedia first being that you type “locative art” and it is the first website that pops up. Another link that popped up was http://mypage.siu.edu/derek/locative/ , it also had straight forward answers, as well as examples of locative art. The last source that I used was our very own World Cat, WSU’s library database. I found it that the difference between this search engine and the first two links that I looked upon was that world cat provided books with information on locative art, newspapers, magazines, and even PDFs. It’s amazing on how different these search engines could run. Rating these sites, I would have to say World Cat, the link that I found, and then Wikipedia. I feel that Wikipedia is being used more often though being that we expect Google to pay upfront and pronto. The most important thing to learn though is that Wikipedia has no reliable sources. Who would have known that a GPS was a locative art? Or at least a type of locative art. Wikipedia gave a bunch of topics to read on locative art. MyPage gave a bunch of resources, and World Cat basically gave you facts with references.
When I searched Wikipedia for locative Art, the website took me to the locative media page. What Wikipedia is, is basically an online super dictionary. Most of the info that came up on the locative media page was informational. However, one can’t always trust wikipedia to be correct when presenting their information. Wikipedia is an open book, anyone can be an author and change the information on any given page. This is why it can be unreliable. There is no way of knowing how credible the author is.
The next search I did for locative art was on the Leonardo Electronic Almanac. This site is very different from Wikipedia. It is basically a site similar to the sites that many colleges use for research. When I typed locative art into the search box, the site pulled up many different abstracts, collections of abstracts, and books on the subject. While this site definitely seems like a much more reliable source for information, it also causes me to pause. The site looks too polished to be objective. Where did the money come from to make the site look so good? Are there certain authors or universities that are paying to get a better search placement?
When I searched for locative art on WorldCat the site pulled up many different books on art. while the other sites pulled up pieces that had to do with electronic art, WorldCat pulled up books on modernism and renaissance art. Only showing me something that had to do with electronic art about halfway down the page. I feel las though I can trust this site because it is being utilized by a well known university.
@MyDtcAccount – Jonathan Crabtree
We were asked to use several different websites to perform a search of “locative art” and analyze the results. After doing the searches, it’s amazing how varied different websites can be when doing the same exact thing.
First, I went to wikipedia and searched for locative art. It brought up the page for locative media, which was not what I was looking for, but I was able to make sense of it because we had talked about it in class before. People always say that “Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone and their mom can edit it with the wrong information.” While this is true, I think that this hardly ever happens. The good people on the internet outweigh the bad.
Next, I searched the Leonardo Electronic Almanac. I had never heard of this one, so I was interested to see what it was all about. After typing “locative art” into the search box, it brought up 27 articles that I could read that contained some type of reference to locative art. For the purpose of understanding what locative art actually is, this site was not very helpful, but for more advanced students who wanted examples of what they were learning, this could supplement their existing knowledge well. As far as credibility, you were able to read about the authors, many of whom were very well-schooled and seemed reliable.
Finally, I went to “WorldCat” to search for locative art. This is WSU’s online library search engine, so it brought up three different books that I could read on the subject. Like the Leonardo Electronic Almanac, this would not be very helpful if I was looking for a quick synopsis of the term, but it would be beneficial if I was looking to supplement my learning with more in-depth readings. All these books are published and peer-reviewed, so they are fairly credible.
The main takeaway is that there are many different ways to search the internet for what you are looking for. Depending on what type of information you need, there are several websites for you. You just need to make sure you know who is giving you the information and how knowledgable they are on the subject.
Looking at three very different sources to learn about something is very challenging. Of the three sources that we were to look at, Leonardo On-line is the only one that I have never heard of so I spent more time on this site searching what it is about and why I would trust it as a reputable source for information. My expectation was not very high as the layout and cluttered site with very small font was an immediate turn off for me. Being a peer-review journal for art, technology and science gives it a very specific niche for digital art. The articles that I read over didn’t really define what Locative Art is but more how it is used in everyday ‘digital’ space and the potential effects it has on the people it touches.
Wikipedia has always been a double edge sword. A good rule of thumb when dealing with Wikipedia is to check out the cited material and never use it as your only source as some of the pages can read like illogicopedia. Wikipedia gave a good general overview of what Locative Art by combining it with Locative Media is with some examples to give me a good start in my search.
With WorldCat being a University Library I knew I would get a broad spectrum of returns that would have to do with art in public spaces and uses. Though I was surprised to only receive three returns but they covered from Ancient objects to Digital art.
Audra Mann | @WSUVcollegeMom
We all have done some research before and the most common place we all turn to is the internet. We don’t go to the library to look for books, newspaper, or journals. We often hear people or even ourselves saying “Google it.” What does that even mean? We can search for information online and get so much feedback that we don’t know what is true or not which may be confusing. Kelly and Luther suggest that “When content is abundant, finding the right content becomes the challenge.”
When I was searching for the term “locative art” in Wikipedia it gave me results for “locative media.” It gave a description on what it is and other information that is not useful. Although Wikipedia has references Wikipedia is not a good place to research things. I don’t think it’s credible because it is not a primary source and anyone can write things on Wikipedia. When I searched for “Locative art” in Leonardo almanac, it gave me 27 results back. This site is not credible because the information that is given is from authors that use their nickname or only use their first name. When searching for the term “locative art” in WorldCat it gave me about 606,393 results back. Most of the results were either ebooks or books. This site looks more credible than the other sites because the information source came from books rather than just websites that people make up. Also the authors full names appear.
All these 3 sites are different and I learned that is better to use information form databases rather than websites like Google, databases are more credible, it gives you relevant information and more feedback.
For this assignment I searched “locative art” on Wikipedia, WorldCat, and Leonardo Electronic Almanac. Wikipedia is a website that can be continuously updated by any user with access to the Internet. The information it offers is bias, and the work is based upon multiple author’s opinions. Since the “authorship,” or “biographical information” is not given, the content of that webpage becomes questionable (Evaluating Information on the Internet). Yet, it does offer an actual definition of locative art, and condensed information.
WorldCat offers a multitude of journals, books, scholarly articles, most of which have been peer reviewed or edited. Once the works or pieces are clicked on, WorldCat offers information about the author, along with publication dates, publication cities, and sources linked to that article or book. Furthermore, WorldCat allows its users to filter the material they want, so if they want a more current article, the user can request it. The sources on this site are more credible than Wikipedia because it offers “authorship, publishing information, source, currency, and verifiability” (Evaluating Information on the Internet).
Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA) offers information that was written and published by credible authors. At the end of the peer reviewed journal the user is searching, the site provides in depth information about the author and publisher. While LEA offers “recent work and topics of current relevance”, it is prone to bias (LEA About). The author’s are experts in their respective field, and will have some bias towards their own work.
Where WorldCat and LEA offers journals and books about the topic, Wikipedia offers a distinctive definition with a condensed background.